The “Rebaptisms” of Acts 19

[rlvaughn]

Darrell, I said I wouldn't be back on today, but decided to read some more while I stopped for lunch. Can't catch up, you just keep adding more!

Why are we not "talking about Old Testament Saints?" The disciples were "Old Testament Saints" until the New Covenant was established. Unless you want to suggest that the New Covenant was established prior to Christ's Death, Resurrection, and return to Heaven, at which time He sent the Spirit of God to perform in a manner in which He had not prior to being sent?

You call the people in Samaria "saints," which I would agree with due to their faith, but, again, there is an underlying assumption of salvation in Christ according to New Covenant standard.

So, to help me understand what you are saying, were the believers in Samaria in ACTS 8 Old Testament saints, New Covenant saints, something in between, or something else altogether? Just because you understand what you mean doesn't mean I understand what you mean.

I'm not going to apologize for my view, and I have never said that there are not former teachers that pre-date the modern Charismatic Movement (this is nothing new to Christianity and is seen in the early centuries as well) who do not also take the view that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is empowerment only, whether they are charismatic, Protestant, or Evangelical.

And that is the reason one should get out of books about the Bible...

...and get into the Books of the Bible.

There is no expectation on my part that you apologize for your view. As far as getting out of books about the Bible and getting into the books of the Bible, I suppose that could also apply to getting out of discussion board posts about the Bible as well.

But if you are not going to address the points, which is what it sounds like to me, seeing these posts will be here tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after, lol, then I will withdraw from this thread and you can continue to wonder about these disciples being "re-baptized." I'm not trying to force anything on you, just addressing those issues you have raised.

I will address the points as, if and when I have time. If you have time to post in a thread more material than anyone has time to get to, that is fine. Doesn't mean everyone else has that much time.

RL, I repost this for the purpose of pointing out that the Scripture presented in the post you are responding to is, in my view, ignored. I would just challenge you to go back and address the points and the Scripture provided.

See above.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is in fact a major issue. The attempt is made to establish a Doctrinal pattern in regards to salvation by using these validating events in Acts. Texts are separated from the Body of Scripture and Doctrine that defies the rest of Scripture is created. The best example of this is perhaps Baptismal Regeneration, in which many groups teach that he Holy Ghost is given when men are water baptized. The arguments presented seem reasonable to the nominal student and believer, but those who take the Whole Counsel into view will see it as absurd.

God bless.

Oneness groups take 2:38 as teaching to us baptgise in nmame of jesus only, Pentacostals wants to keep pentacost from being a one time event to being in each generation, so when one refuses to see that Acts is NOT written to give to usna normal way God operates today, but as recoding to us how he choose to in the days before the canon of scriptures were completed, and the Gospel recognized as valid for Jews and gentiles alike...

 

[Darrell C]

Oneness groups take 2:38 as teaching to us baptgise in nmame of jesus only, Pentacostals wants to keep pentacost from being a one time event to being in each generation, so when one refuses to see that Acts is NOT written to give to usna normal way God operates today, but as recoding to us how he choose to in the days before the canon of scriptures were completed, and the Gospel recognized as valid for Jews and gentiles alike...

Which "Name" to Baptize in is somewhat moot when we understand that Christ was God manifest in the flesh, no? lol

And the understanding of Pentecost and subsequent acts given us is primarily based on their understanding of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. The question is, when we discuss with our Pentecostal and Charismatic brothers and sisters, are we ready to confront their doctrine? Do we have confidence that we can address the doctrine they teach?

As Baptists, lol, I think we should be ready for those discussions, and be able to give them something to think about.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell, I said I wouldn't be back on today, but decided to read some more while I stopped for lunch. Can't catch up, you just keep adding more!

I know how that feels, lol, so no worries, because I am at a point where I need to take leave of this forum for a while. I usually just spend a little time here, and do so because this is one of the first forums I ran across when, to my delight, there was somewhere where someone like me could go to talk with people about Scripture. For me it's like being a kid in a candy store, lol, because in the field few really want to discuss Scripture, which to me is odd. I can't really understand how anyone who is born again...wouldn't want to.

I think in the two threads, this one and the thread concerning the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, there is more than enough to outline my own view, and the associated presentations that I feel validate that view. you might noticve that several said "None of the above" to the Poll, yet did not have a view that displaced "Immersion into God" as the correct choice, though they were asked to.

So you can, if you like, take a look at what has already been said. Perhaps at a future time we may engage in discussion where both of us can have given attention to the issue and be able to discuss it easier.

So, to help me understand what you are saying, were the believers in Samaria in ACTS 8 Old Testament saints, New Covenant saints, something in between, or something else altogether? Just because you understand what you mean doesn't mean I understand what you mean.

This is true, especially dealing with an issue that has to have a number of other issues understood in order to make sense of it.

First, an "Old Testament Saint," as defined my me, would be a believer (one of faith, justified by their faith (see Hebrews 11)), that fell under an economy or Dispensation rather than the one that began at Pentecost. For example, John was under (the Covenant of) Law from the time he was born until the time he died, because that was the only Covenant available for men to be in relationship with God through. Christ was made under (the Covenant of) Law, and ministered within that framework also.

So when we get to the Samarians, they are not "old Testament Saints in the sense that they lived within that economy/ies, but Old Testament Saints in the sense that they had not yet been brought into relationship with God through the only Covenant available in their day.

They are within a transitional period in history, and though they come to believe, like Cornelius, in the Risen Savior, they are not what might be termed "New Testament/Covenant Saints" until they are actually brought into Covenant relationship with God.

This is an underlying theme of Hebrews, who exhorts and warns his brethren (Jews) to embrace the New Covenant which was only promised and pictured in the "First Covenant" (Covenant of Law).

There is no expectation on my part that you apologize for your view. As far as getting out of books about the Bible and getting into the books of the Bible, I suppose that could also apply to getting out of discussion board posts about the Bible as well.

For some you are correct. Some use these forums as chat boards, and have no real motivation to study the Word of God, challenge their own views, and in general...grow in knowledge of God. But I suggest to you that there is no better way for accelerated learning and growth in understanding than a Doctrinal Discussion forum. Ever gone to a Sunday School class or listened to a sermon and wished you could take the teacher or preacher to the side and talk with him? Well, you can do that on a forum. And because every word is recorded there is only one way for your questions not to be answered...if they are ignored.

But as far as the Word of God goes in relation to my own forum campaigns, I am usually immersed in the Word of God and there is no separation from the Books of the Bible. How that relates to my statement is on this wise: there is a difference between simply looking to a commentator to affirm your position, and looking into the Word of God for that affirmation and validation.

Big difference.

We can see on the internet these days that no matter how kooky, crazy, or even blasphemous a doctrine might be, you can google it and find someone somewhere...that affirms it. That is why we see people on this forum, Baptists, teaching doctrines such as soul sleep, annihilation, and that men are angels that take up residence in human form. Can they justify those doctrines with Scripture? Some think they can, but, when they present commentary from others rather than simply presenting Scripture, does this make their doctrine any more valid?

I will address the points as, if and when I have time. If you have time to post in a thread more material than anyone has time to get to, that is fine. Doesn't mean everyone else has that much time.

And I don't really have that time either, lol. That is why I force myself to stop coming. I have a business to run as well as other projects and other forums to visit. I don't set up shop on one forum, but try to get to as many as I can. But as I said, this forum has a special interest to me, and it is the only one I come back to on a regular basis. Primarily because it is a Baptist Forum, and also because it is interesting to watch others grow. Some here don't know it, but they have changed over the nearly 6 years I have been coming here. I have made a study of human behavior, and have seen God working in the lives of many here.

My favorite spectator sport.



And besides, where else can I really get the chance to talk with other Baptists on such a large scale with as much diversity as we see among them. Before I came here, I though all Baptists were like the Independent Baptists I usually fellowship with.

Okay, RL, have to get going, and again, take your time. I would actually prefer that you give what I have said a little consideration before responding to it. There are a lot of things that need to be taken into consideration with just this one issue. That men are immersed when Baptized with the Holy Ghost is not something that I came to believe overnight, but has taken years of study, debate, and discussion to come to the point where I am confident that it cannot be invalidated. But as you say, it is hard to transfer what I understand in a few words.


Hence I do not try to clarify my view with a few words, lol. And sometimes there are those who are interested in addressing the points. Sadly, few do, but, when they do, it makes for great discussion. Recently my best antagonist has been a Seventh Day Adventist.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

He's only been told that like a thousand times. He smothers threads. The ignore function does a wonderful job eliminating all the scrolling that he generates.

Ah yes, the armor of God:


Ephesians 6:13-18

King James Version (KJV)


13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;


I am quite sure, had the internet been available to Paul that he would have no doubt included the Ignore Function...


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Which "Name" to Baptize in is somewhat moot when we understand that Christ was God manifest in the flesh, no? lol

And the understanding of Pentecost and subsequent acts given us is primarily based on their understanding of the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. The question is, when we discuss with our Pentecostal and Charismatic brothers and sisters, are we ready to confront their doctrine? Do we have confidence that we can address the doctrine they teach?

As Baptists, lol, I think we should be ready for those discussions, and be able to give them something to think about.


God bless.

Think that while there are some in the pentacostal movemnent who still would hold to the real Gospel, who uphold salvation as we Baptists do, that a big piece of the modern day Charasmatic Movement, espewcially those in the so called Word of fauth/Health and wealth Gospel, along with oneness groups, are holding to doctrines of demons and false teachers...

 

[Darrell C]

Think that while there are some in the pentacostal movemnent who still would hold to the real Gospel, who uphold salvation as we Baptists do, that a big piece of the modern day Charasmatic Movement, espewcially those in the so called Word of fauth/Health and wealth Gospel, along with oneness groups, are holding to doctrines of demons and false teachers...

I look at it like this: there are in these groups, and all groups, those who sincerely believe the beliefs they hold are valid doctrines, and in large part that is because they are following the leadership they are under. And as there are, in every group, those who are sincere in their faith in Christ and those who are not, it's best not to try to determine whether they are saved based on some of these doctrines. But when we have teachings that stray from a Biblical depiction of God and Christ, as well as a Biblical depiction of the Gospel, That's a little different. I think we can without doubt recognize a cult by what they teach concerning the Person of Christ, and I have seen some pretty cultic teachings in some of these charismatic groups, which the health/wealth group is a part of.

And it's odd that some would buy into doctrines such as men becoming gods or that God means for all believers to be healthy and wealthy, but, I think some of them, those who are truly sincere in their search for Biblical truth...will eventually figure it out. Because it will be the contradiction in a sincere faith in Christ and the lack of the promised health or wealth that will finally give them cause to question it.

When it comes to the preachers themselves, perhaps some of them are sincere in their belief, but, some of the outlandish stuff I have heard them "teach" boggles the mind.


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

I look at it like this: there are in these groups, and all groups, those who sincerely believe the beliefs they hold are valid doctrines, and in large part that is because they are following the leadership they are under. And as there are, in every group, those who are sincere in their faith in Christ and those who are not, it's best not to try to determine whether they are saved based on some of these doctrines. But when we have teachings that stray from a Biblical depiction of God and Christ, as well as a Biblical depiction of the Gospel, That's a little different. I think we can without doubt recognize a cult by what they teach concerning the Person of Christ, and I have seen some pretty cultic teachings in some of these charismatic groups, which the health/wealth group is a part of.

And it's odd that some would buy into doctrines such as men becoming gods or that God means for all believers to be healthy and wealthy, but, I think some of them, those who are truly sincere in their search for Biblical truth...will eventually figure it out. Because it will be the contradiction in a sincere faith in Christ and the lack of the promised health or wealth that will finally give them cause to question it.

When it comes to the preachers themselves, perhaps some of them are sincere in their belief, but, some of the outlandish stuff I have heard them "teach" boggles the mind.


God bless.

Those in the Word of faith that teach that we are little gods, that Jesus died as demon possessed, and had to get born again in hell, and who sees us as being essentially same as him have fully given into doctrines of demons, as they all claim that the Holy Spirit told them those truths!

many who follow them are sincere, but misguided and fall for those who advocate this spiritual garbage, due to them either not being saved themselves, or else placing tradition and smooth talking over the truth of the Bible!

 

[rlvaughn]

Darrell and all, just to give you an idea what folks with limited time are up against trying to answer Darrell’s posts:

To sort out and make it easier to tell what I’m doing, instead of using the small box on Baptist Board I copied and pasted some of Darrell’s posts on pages 2 and 3 of this thread and they filled 20 pages in Microsoft Word! Perhaps you don’t mean it so, but it appears you are trying to consume all in your path by the sheer quantity of your posting. It’s hard to have a conversation when the conversation gets lost. It’s not problematic that you post whatever and however much you wish. But it is problematic when you say you want to carry on a conversation with someone about the material you are posting. At least that’s how I see it.

Hopefully the formatting won’t get lost doing it this way.

Now, to bring this back to the focal point, the Baptism with the Holy Ghost

Darrell, that appears to be your focal point rather than mine. I think you have started two different threads on it, plus injecting it as the main theme in this thread originally about Acts 19:1-7.

One last passage (of focus) to consider in regards to this point, which I have presented numerous times on this, and other forums, yet to this day not one person has ever bothered to comment on:

Hebrews 9:12-15…

What this states is that the sins of the Old Testament Saint had to be, and were...redeemed by the Blood of Christ, not the blood of bulls and goats. It states He obtained, through His Sacrifice...their eternal redemption.

Probably no one has thought it much necessary to comment on because they believe the blood of Jesus Christ does obtain eternal redemption!

Yes, "we" are, but they were not. They believed, to be sure, but, we have to maintain precisely what Scripture teaches, and Scripture makes it clear that "we" receive something better than was available to the Old Testament Saint. IT is because we think that regeneration has to occur in all Ages that the concept of who is "saved" and who isn't gets confusing, so, it's easier to create a blanket concept which teaches that as long as one believes they are "saved." But I ask you, is the Jew that "believes" in the Messiah he is still waiting for a Born Again Christ? If not...why not? He is believing exactly the same thing the disciples believed up until the day of Pentecost.

Actually I think most people think that God has saved people in all ages is pretty simple and foundational, and when we start talking about how he has that it gets confusing. Sounds to me that the according to your view the father of the faithful would not have been in the faith himself.

Galatians 3:7-9 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Yes, there are many things better in the New Testament, but salvation by faith isn’t one of them.

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all

 

[rlvaughn]

Too big to post, had to break it apart:

This should not even be in question, from my perspective, because we can see that on the Day of Ascension (which follows this statement)...the Spirit has not come.

But, if we make the Baptism with the Holy Ghost to mean empowerment only, we can make this the time when the disciples receive the Holy Ghost.

Now let me ask you this, RL, will you cede the point that this would set it clear that the disciples had not received the Holy Ghost while they were ministering with Christ? Now think about that: it still shows a dramatic difference between men receiving the Holy Ghost under New Testament standard as opposed to the Spirit's Ministry under the Law and in previous Ages. There is still no way to equate this ministry with those that came before.

I would “set it clear” that the disciples had not received the baptism of the Holy Ghost which John and Jesus said was yet to come and was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. Nevertheless, the Spirit was not inactive or non-existent in the days before Pentecost.

The Holy Spirit did not make His first appearance at Pentecost. He created and sustains life.
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

The Spirit of God strove with the hearts of men in Noah’s day.
Genesis 6:3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Some are mentioned as having the Spirit.
Genesis 41:38 And Pharaoh said unto his servants, Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is?
Numbers 14:24 but my servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him, and hath followed me fully, him will I bring into the land whereinto he went; and his seed shall possess it.
Numbers 27:18 And the Lord said unto Moses, Take thee Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him;
Nehemiah 9:30 Yet many years didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them by thy spirit in thy prophets: yet would they not give ear: therefore gavest thou them into the hand of the people of the lands.
1 Peter 1:11 searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Jesus preached being born again of the Spirit before Pentecost
John3:3 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 the same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

When Jesus was in the world (before Pentecost) those who received him were born of God.
John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
John 10:26-27 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

Now look at another proof-text for the Baptism with the Holy Ghost being an empowerment:

Acts 1:8…

The receiving of power is not distinguished from the coming of the Holy Ghost upon them. And when we correlate that to other passages dealing with a specifically salvific context, we can see we do err to equate these two:

There is no error in correlating these two, because the Lord himself correlated them in the context in which he was speaking. He was talking about the baptism of the Holy Ghost not many days hence, and he said they would receive power after that happened to be world-wide witnesses. There was perhaps not clarity in previous mentions that I made, that I believe this is endorsement and empowerment on the church collectively – not particularly individual coming on of the Spirit in power as might be conceived by the Charismatics.

It is the opening of a new Age, RL. It is the Comforter that enlightens the mind to the Mystery of the Gospel, both in bringing men into union with God (His convicting ministry, which is specific to the Gospel (He glorifies Christ)), as well as making those immersed into God understand (His teaching ministry to believers).

The "laying on of hands" is not how they received the Spirit, for God and eternal life is not dispensed by men. Just as the Levitical Priest did not actually transfer the sins of the "comer thereunto" to the animal being sacrificed, neither did Paul, or any Apostle "transfer" the Holy Ghost into those who received the Holy Ghost:

Since you apparently believe the coming of the Holy Ghost in these cases (Acts 8, Acts 19) which you call the baptism of the Holy Ghost equates with eternal salvation, then you cannot receive it. But it is nevertheless what those texts say. Consider also:

Acts 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

1 Timothy 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

The Writer of Hebrews demands that foundational doctrines of the Law are not to be laid again:

And yet he does not say we should no longer believe in these things. Do you believe in the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment, for example?

And you are not alone in that. I would venture a guess that perhaps no less than 80% of professing Christians also see the Baptism of the Holy Ghost as an empowering, which, as I said, is a result of the inroads Charismatic doctrine has had in groups we might consider orthodox.

Though you will not receive it, it has been mentioned and can be shown that views different from yours on the baptism of the Holy Ghost do not of necessity trace back to Charismatics. This seems like a bogey-man mentioned to scare people into running from something because it is similar to what Charismatics hold.

For example, if it is empowerment, then the Baptism with the Holy Ghost must have been happening throughout Scripture, because men have been empowered by God for ministry from the beginning (Genesis).

Not at all. Yes, empowerment has happened throughout Scripture. The baptism of the Holy Ghost poured out on the church on the day of Pentecost had never happened before, and is not still happening.

Whereas every Baptist Church I have been a member of (primarily Independent Baptist Churches and one Southern Baptist, since I was saved in 1995) has always distinguished the Ministry of the Spirit of God among men as distinctly different, usually in terms of "The Holy Spirit came upon people then, but comes into men now."

Well, I suppose, just like it didn’t matter what I mentioned some Baptist said about the baptism of the Holy Ghost, scripturally it doesn’t really matter what every Baptist church you’ve been a member of said either. “Doesn't really make much difference what any Baptist writer has to say if it does not reconcile all of Scripture.” Ultimately it is what lines up with the overall teaching of Scripture.

Perhaps that remains to be seen? lol

What do you mean when you keep adding “lol” from time to time? I thought it meant “laughing out loud” and am curious if that is what you mean?

 

[rlvaughn]

More:

But when we bring all teaching into harmony, the only reasonable conclusion is that, as God promised to do something in the future, that is precisely what happened.

I don’t really think anyone is disagreeing that God promised to and did something in the future, but rather the nature of that promise and what he did.

I think Christ makes it clear:

Matthew 11:11…

You reply to my mention of Mark 1:1ff, Matthew 11:13, and Luke 16:16 saying “I think Christ makes it clear” and “John is an Old Testament Prophet.” You post some other verses to provide a different direction but never actually deal with the verses mentioned. Jesus said that the law and the prophets were until John, and since then something else was happening. Under inspiration the writer Mark says that the ministry of John was the beginning of the gospel. So the transition starts at that time and not later. Many dispensationalists like a “clean break” from one dispensation to another and Pentecost seems to provide that. But that view doesn’t accord with what Jesus said or what Mark wrote under inspiration. To make the other Scriptures given seem to contradict what else is said is shrouds the picture.

It's really not up for debate whether eternal life is bestowed through the giving of the Spirit of God to the believer, though it is debated by those who see Old Testament Saints receiving the identical "salvation" as New Covenant believers.

To me it seems you are the one debating that.

As I said, Acts 11 makes it clear that salvation was imparted through the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. We can say assuredly that Cornelius and his house were not "saved" according to New Covenant standard, because this is made clear in the text. When we understand that validation of salvation given to Gentiles and Samaritans is the primary reason we see some distinction in the process of salvation occurring, it clears up questions as to why the sequence seems to vary (some water baptize before, some after receiving the Spirit of God).

Not so clear as you seem to think. They were saved and based on Peter’s statement, baptized by the Holy Ghost as he felt on the day of Pentecost. But that view is problematic because Peter clearly cites this event as being like at the first, while other occurrences of imparted salvation in Acts are not so connected to the Pentecost event – indicating this is a special occurrence in Acts 10.

Why are we not "talking about Old Testament Saints?" The disciples were "Old Testament Saints" until the New Covenant was established. Unless you want to suggest that the New Covenant was established prior to Christ's Death, Resurrection, and return to Heaven, at which time He sent the Spirit of God to perform in a manner in which He had not prior to being sent?

I think we are “talking about Old Testament Saints” because you have made the baptism of the Holy Ghost the main topic of discussion and you want to make the contrast with the Old Testament saints. To do so you put every disciple in the Gospels in the category of Old Testament saints and in effect make the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John part of the Old Testament rather than the New Testament. But, to be clear, the incidents initially under discussion – Acts 8, Acts 10 and Acts 19 – are not in the Old Testament even in your division of things. They all happen after Pentecost.

You call the people in Samaria "saints," which I would agree with due to their faith, but, again, there is an underlying assumption of salvation in Christ according to New Covenant standard.

And we know that is not the case, because they had not received the Holy Ghost, which is one of the things you list as a necessity for "salvation." See how things become confused when we take a term and give it a general meaning? David was saved, yet David had not received the Atonement. He prophesied of this future event. So are we "saved" like David was? No, because we have received the Atonement, Reconciliation, and the Holy Ghost only promised to David.

You see, here is a big problem. You make the distinction of division Pentecost, then you go back on it when you come to Acts 8 because it does not fit your view. But we should make our view fit the Scriptures rather than making the Scriptures fit our view. I’m not sure I even understand what you are saying part of the time on this. But as for me, I distinguish between receiving the Holy Ghost at the time of the Samaritans belief, and their receiving the manifestation of the Holy Ghost with the laying on of hands.

So when we get to the Samarians, they are not "old Testament Saints in the sense that they lived within that economy/ies, but Old Testament Saints in the sense that they had not yet been brought into relationship with God through the only Covenant available in their day.

So, would you say that Paul and Silas’ instruction to the Philippian jailer was not equally applicable to all others to whom the gospel was preached in the book of Acts?

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

There is a lot more that could be said, but this is all I have time for at the moment.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell and all, just to give you an idea what folks with limited time are up against trying to answer Darrell’s posts:

To sort out and make it easier to tell what I’m doing, instead of using the small box on Baptist Board I copied and pasted some of Darrell’s posts on pages 2 and 3 of this thread and they filled 20 pages in Microsoft Word! Perhaps you don’t mean it so, but it appears you are trying to consume all in your path by the sheer quantity of your posting. It’s hard to have a conversation when the conversation gets lost. It’s not problematic that you post whatever and however much you wish. But it is problematic when you say you want to carry on a conversation with someone about the material you are posting. At least that’s how I see it.

Hopefully the formatting won’t get lost doing it this way.

And how many pages do your responses create? lol

Just because my responses are complete, doesn't mean you have to respond to them, which is usually the case. At the very least, try to understand the point being made and address that.

Darrell, that appears to be your focal point rather than mine. I think you have started two different threads on it, plus injecting it as the main theme in this thread originally about Acts 19:1-7.

Why would not the actual baptism which is relevant to the texts you seek to understand...be off topic?

The Ephesian disciples are not re-baptized, they are in this event...saved. I have shown in Acts 11 that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is the time of Cornelius' salvation...why would it just be water baptism in Acts 19?

Darrell C said: ↑
One last passage (of focus) to consider in regards to this point, which I have presented numerous times on this, and other forums, yet to this day not one person has ever bothered to comment on:

Hebrews 9:12-15…

What this states is that the sins of the Old Testament Saint had to be, and were...redeemed by the Blood of Christ, not the blood of bulls and goats. It states He obtained, through His Sacrifice...their eternal redemption.

Probably no one has thought it much necessary to comment on because they believe the blood of Jesus Christ does obtain eternal redemption!

That is not the point, RL: the point is that these verses ascribe both eternal redemption and remission of sins to Christ's Work.

That is what most miss, and that is what you are skirting here.

Now go back and put that in the context in which it is given and see if you agree or disagree. This same issue is the heart of the problem which causes most to equate salvation under both Convenants, and this passage is a clear statement that sins were not forgiven under the Law on an eternal basis, but awaited Christ's Sacrifice.

Actually I think most people think that God has saved people in all ages is pretty simple and foundational, and when we start talking about how he has that it gets confusing. Sounds to me that the according to your view the father of the faithful would not have been in the faith himself.

And I have made it clear...I view the Old Testament Saints to have been saved by grace through faith.

But that does not mean they received the Promised Spirit, remission of sins, nor eternal redemption as we do in this Age.

Why did they all offer up sacrifice...and you don't?

Galatians 3:7-9 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

Yes, there are many things better in the New Testament, but salvation by faith isn’t one of them.

Salvation in Christ is, though, because now men are commanded to have specific faith in the Risen Savior.

You do not see that in Abraham's faith. He had faith in the promise of God, but He did not know that the Seed in view was the Person of Christ.

Paul explains that:


Galatians 3:13-16

King James Version (KJV)


13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.


Now, do you really want to say they did receive the promise of the Spirit? Before He was sent (John 7:38-39)? That they were trusting in Christ...

...rather than their heritage?

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Romans 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all

Do you see the fulfillment of promise in this verse, RL? When exactly did both Jew and Gentile receive the promises of God?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

I would “set it clear” that the disciples had not received the baptism of the Holy Ghost which John and Jesus said was yet to come and was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. Nevertheless, the Spirit was not inactive or non-existent in the days before Pentecost.

And nothing I have ever said has implied the Spirit was inactive. You are creating a false argument which is likely due to not retaining what has already passed in the discussion:

Secondly, we know that in view is not simply empowerment, as our Charismatic brethren believe, because (1) the disciples had already been empowered by the Holy Ghost when they preached the Kingdom of God, and (20 because Peter makes this clear in the next statement:

This is the consistent position I take in every thread dealing with the differing ministries of the Holy Ghost between this Age under the New Covenant and those prior to this Age.

What do you mean when you keep adding “lol” from time to time? I thought it meant “laughing out loud” and am curious if that is what you mean?

It means I am laughing, lol.

I really do find things funny, RL.

It is also to help show that there is no enmity or anger on my part, it's just a discussion.

I don’t really think anyone is disagreeing that God promised to and did something in the future, but rather the nature of that promise and what he did.

On the contrary, RL...most are disagreeing.

And what is ironic is some of them agree with me:

It is more likely they were disciples of a wandering disciple of John. Or even a disciple of a disciple of a disciple. This disciple of John heard John's preaching regarding "Behold the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world." But he never heard how that was applied to the hearer. The indwelling, regenerating, enabling, and empowering presence of the Holy Spirit, without which there is no new spiritual life.

They heard a partial gospel. When the complete gospel was declared to them they believed and were scripturally baptized.

Now look at this member's position against my own, and you will see the contradiction.

And that is the problem: people want to equate the provision of the Law with the provision of the New Covenant.

The same salvation, the same Spirit, and the same remission of sins.

Just not a Scriptural view, and the above quote is a good place for those who do this to start. They have not ignored Hebrews 9:12-15 because...

Actually I think most people think that God has saved people in all ages is pretty simple and foundational, and when we start talking about how he has that it gets confusing.

...they ignore it because it does not support their equation of God's Promises and Provision between the Covenants.

So, would you say that Paul and Silas’ instruction to the Philippian jailer was not equally applicable to all others to whom the gospel was preached in the book of Acts?

How is that relevant?

Every salvific event in Acts falls under the Provision of the New Covenant, RL.

The question is, is the Gospel preached to men in the Old Testament the revealed Mystery of the Gospel?

Is the Spirit of God doing precisely what He did in the Old Testament as He is doing in Acts?

If you say yes, then you are equating the coming of the Promised Spirit, which you acknowledge as not coming until Pentecost...with the ministry of the Spirit in the Old Testament.

Look, if it is okay for you to do long responses, yet not myself, could you explain why? If you want to chat about this, great. There are many here who will want to do the same.

If you want to pick one point and focus on that, great. Pick one.

But the fact is, when men received the Spirit that was Promised by the Father and taught of by Christ...they receive eternal salvation that was not occurring in the Old Testament. The primary element to understand is that it is the reconciliation of man to God, and man is, in Christ only...brought back into spiritual union with God.

That is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, that is what takes place in Acts 19, and these disciples of John are baptized in the Name of Christ for the first time.

They are not "re-baptized."

And by the way, these posts are just in answering a few of your own comments. Again I would ask why you complain about the length of my own yet it is okay for you to do long responses?


God bless.

 

[Yeshua1]

Much of this would reflect back to on how one views the contiunuity netween Old/New Covenants...

many see it as basically being the new One enlarged and fulfilled the old One, now bringing to God Jews/gentiles both on an equal basis, as they would see the church in the OT, and isreal being now the church of the New, while those like me would tend to see it as superceded and being a brand new work of God... Church started at Pentacost....

 

[rlvaughn]

And by the way, these posts are just in answering a few of your own comments. Again I would ask why you complain about the length of my own yet it is okay for you to do long responses?

Well, friend, I was able to cut down by half -- from 20 MS Word pages to 10. So much for length vs. length! lol

The point is not how much you post; it is a free country; the space on Baptist Board is free and you can post as much as you like. But what I see is that you post and post, but then complain because you say folks avoid or don't answer your questions. That is what I see as discordant. IOW, if you want a conversation on these things, it is a two-way street. If not, it does really matter how much you post.

So to be brief, I want to ask if I am understanding one thing that I think I have missed in all you have posted. You say of the Acts 19 disciples, "They are not 're-baptized'." I don't think they were either, but it may be that we are saying different things? Are you saying that there is no water baptism at all in this passage? Acts 19:5 -- When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus -- are you saying that was not water baptism at all, but the baptism of the Holy Ghost?

 

[Darrell C]

Well, friend, I was able to cut down by half -- from 20 MS Word pages to 10. So much for length vs. length! lol

Now go back and insert the relevant Scripture and see where your count is. (edited note, I had "where you lie but realized you might think I was referring to you lying rather than where your word count lie, lol).

The point is not how much you post; it is a free country; the space on Baptist Board is free and you can post as much as you like. But what I see is that you post and post, but then complain because you say folks avoid or don't answer your questions.

So show what in my response does not address the statement of my antagonist.

I post it because it is relevant to the discussion.

It is irritating to have to repeat the same opints over and over, even as I am doing in this one.

That is what I see as discordant.

If you can show it is irrelevant then you can say it is discordant.

IOW, if you want a conversation on these things, it is a two-way street. If not, it does really matter how much you post.

It's not a two way street when only one person is anwering the assertions, questions, and statements.

That is the reality.

So to be brief, I want to ask if I am understanding one thing that I think I have missed in all you have posted. You say of the Acts 19 disciples, "They are not 're-baptized'." I don't think they were either, but it may be that we are saying different things? Are you saying that there is no water baptism at all in this passage? Acts 19:5 -- When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus -- are you saying that was not water baptism at all, but the baptism of the Holy Ghost?

I guess you have missed it. I have been quite clear that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is what is in view in Acts 19. They receive the Spirit. We see in Acts 11 that receiving the Spirit is in fact salvation. It is said to be repentance unto life, which is contrasted with John's baptism unto repentance. That should clarify my position in regards to whether they were re-baptized or not.

None of that leads to a conclusion of "none of them were baptized with water," it leads to a conclusion of, for the first time, they are Baptized with the Holy Ghost and for the first time they were baptized in the Name of Christ, their identification shifting from being identified with John to being identified with Christ.


God bless.

 

[rlvaughn]

It is irritating to have to repeat the same opints over and over, even as I am doing in this one.

Guess you'll just have to be irritated. Like the rest of us.

I guess you have missed it. I have been quite clear that the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is what is in view in Acts 19. They receive the Spirit. We see in Acts 11 that receiving the Spirit is in fact salvation. It is said to be repentance unto life, which is contrasted with John's baptism unto repentance. That should clarify my position in regards to whether they were re-baptized or not.

None of that leads to a conclusion of "none of them were baptized with water," it leads to a conclusion of, for the first time, they are Baptized with the Holy Ghost and for the first time they were baptized in the Name of Christ, their identification shifting from being identified with John to being identified with Christ.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Darrell C]

Guess you'll just have to be irritated. Like the rest of us.

It's okay...I live for that kind of irritation, lol.

That should be pretty obvious.




God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

I believe that Apollos had two flaws; (1) He did not know the baptism in the Spirit (although true born again saved believer) which accredited the church as the authorized administrator of the ordinances. (2) He did not know that Jesus of Nazereth was the Messiah. He believed in the gospel as presented in Acts 10:43 thus had believed in the Messiah/Christ for salvation. I believe he had been baptized by John BEFORE John revealed Jesus as the fulfillment of the Messiah.

After being more fully instructed. He was not rebaptized as the baptism of John was the "counsel of God" and only baptism Jesus and all the apostles and disicples received and was the baptism in the Great Commission and "one baptism".

The consequence is that he no longer worked as a free agent but worked in and through the Lord's churches AND he proved that "Jesus" was the Messiah of the Old Testament.

The same two flaws are found in the 12 disciples. Most likely Apollos baptized into the name of John. They also did not know about the baptism in the Spirit or that Jesus was the predicted Christ.

When they were properly informed about scriptural baptism - the baptism of John - and that John baptized in reference to Jesus as the Christ. They were baptized by a church authorized administrator.

In Acts 8, and 19 it is not the Person of the Spirit being received through the laying on of hands, but the confirming SIGN gifts of the Spirit or the temporary manifestations that would continue until the Bibical revelation was completed and the last person on whom the apostles laid hands died.

In Acts 10 the baptism in the Spirit occurred the second and last time in order to confirm Gentiles as proper subjects for water baptism and EQUAL members in the churches. I believe they had already been saved or converted to the gospel as preached by all the prophets (Acts 10:43) and manifested the fruits of the indwelling Spirit prior to God sending Peter.

1. Luke says the Spirit "fell" on them (v. 44) and that term is never used to describe initial salvation of anyone but empowerment as in being filled and gifted (v. 46).

2. Luke says the Spirit was "poured out" which is never used for regeneration by the Spirit but the visible signs of the Spirit - accreditation and sign gifts - v. 45

3. Peter is referring to the manifest sign gifts (tongues) which they heard in verse 45 and therefore "received" refers to the sign gifts not to the Person of the Spirit.

The term "save" and "salvation" is broader than the conversion experience but can refer to progressive sanctification or yet future glorification. Here it is speaking about their fitness for baptism and church membership or the salvation of their daily lives for the glory of God through the church.

3.

The term "saved" includes more than initial gospel conversion, but it also can be applied to baptism (into church membership "progressive sanctification" and in this case the salvation of their life of service through the Lord's church.

 

[Darrell C]

When they were properly informed about scriptural baptism - the baptism of John - and that John baptized in reference to Jesus as the Christ. They were baptized by a church authorized administrator.

So those who were baptized by John had received "initial Gospel conversion?"

John distinguishes between his baptism with water, and the Baptizer's baptism with the Holy Ghost. If you say they were converted through John's baptism to "initial conversion," then you must also conclude John baptized with the Holy Ghost, because no-one who has not received the Spirit of God is converted.

The term "saved" includes more than initial gospel conversion, but it also can be applied to baptism (into church membership "progressive sanctification" and in this case the salvation of their life of service through the Lord's church.

Salvation can be applied to "baptism into church membership progressive sanctification?"

Could you explain that for me?

And I will have to come back to your response, have to get going.


God bless.